The “Cromnibus” spending bill that marked the end of the least productive Congress in 60 years was every bit as bad as you’ve heard.

Start with the name. No one seems sure what “cromnibus” means One theory says it’s a merger of “continuing resolution” and “omnibus.” Another traces it to “cramming” items into an “omnibus” spending plan. Whatever its origin, it’s an ugly word for an ugly process.

And it isn’t just the process. For many Democrats, the biggest problem was regulatory exemptions for Wall Street, which still doesn’t recognize how its tax-subsidized risk-taking brought the world economy to its knees just six years ago.

For some House Republicans, it was that the spending bill didn’t try to stop President Obama’s executive order on immigration — though the Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform long ago, and the House responded by doing nothing.

Still, even in all-or-nothing legislation, someone decides what goes in and what stays out — and is responsible for its content.

That why Mainers should take a close look at provisions benefiting trucking companies inserted by their newly reelected senior senator, Susan Collins. She sits on the Transportation Committee as ranking minority member, and will become chairwoman in January.

While the standard criticism of omnibus legislation is that it bypasses the normal legislative process, sometimes it’s the only way to get things done.

That was the case in 2011, when Collins obtained a longterm exemption so 100,000 pound-trucks could operate on Maine’s interstate system.

The federal weight limits, while technically 80,000 pounds, are riddled with loopholes. Almost all the states around Maine, and Canadian provinces to the north, already have 100,000-pound interstate limits. Since agreement on the larger issue is stalemated, Collins acted in Maine’s interest, since the exemption keeps heavy vehicles off local roads.

The same, unfortunately, can’t be said for Collins’ latest effort, which suspends a portion of federal regulations for maximum driving hours. The suspended rule required a weekly rest break for truckers of 34 hours, including two overnights.

It took more than a decade to create effective regulations, in large part because of industry resistance. The movement for better truck safety has its roots in a horrendous crash in Maine, where in 1994 a driver for Wal-Mart fell asleep and destroyed a car stopped in the breakdown lane, killing four teenagers; only one survived.

One of the parents, Daphne Izer, became a tireless advocate for safety through her organization, Parents Against Tired Truckers.

I always thought the name slightly unfortunate, because it focuses on truckers, not the companies that require them to put in long hours. But there’s no doubt that without Izer and her fellow advocates, we wouldn’t have effective safety regulation.

The much-vetted rules followed a lengthy process that included expert testimony and countless studies. A key conclusion was that without a significant rest period each week, humans’ biological clocks never properly reset. Truckers become chronically tired, and — doing a job featuring both stress and boredom — prone to accidents.

At one time, most truckers had unions representing them. But 1970s trucking deregulation effectively destroyed the unions, so drivers have little choice but to follow whatever schedules are assigned.

That’s why the federal regulations are so important. Without them, pretty much anything goes.

And that’s also why Collins’ exemption that eliminates the second overnight is so troubling. She claims the rule has the “unintended consequence” of putting more trucks on the road during peak hours.

Perhaps. But even if it’s true, that’s only because companies want to get maximum hours from each driver. As Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx points out, Collins’ change allow maximum weekly hours to go from 70 to 82 — not exactly reassuring.

Companies could also comply by hiring more drivers. Given that wages for truck driving have fallen sharply over the past 30 years, one has to wonder whether we really can’t invest in safer operations.

Technological improvements like anti-lock brakes and electronic monitors have made trucking safer. The biggest remaining risk is the human factor, exactly where Collins asks the rest of us to take chances.

She calls the change an “experiment” that can be evaluated in a year. But if the experiment leads to more crashes and more deaths, as safety advocates predict, what then?

That’s the problem with removing one element of carefully devised rules that balance the interests of safety and corporate efficiency. In all likelihood, there will be more “unintended consequences.”

Most people, if they had a voice, would err on the side of safety, and on taking pressure off drivers to work ever-longer hours. Those aren’t the people Sen. Collins was listening to.

———

Douglas Rooks is a former daily and weekly newspaper editor who has covered the State House for 30 years. He can be reached at [email protected].